Hypothesis

The main scientific objection to the GTE is not that changes occur through time, and neither is it about the size of the change (so I would discourage use of the terms micro- and macro-Evolution—see the appendix to this book). The key issue is the type of change required—to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content. The three billion DNA ‘letters’ stored in each human cell nucleus convey a great deal more information (known as ‘specified complexity’) than the over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism. The DNA sequences in a ‘higher’ organism, such as a human being or a horse, for instance, code for structures and functions unknown in the sort of ‘primitive first cell’ from which all other organisms are said to have evolved.

I'm glad you brought up micro and macro. Evolution is a very large theory, encompassing many fields of science. Micro and macro dictate scale of evolution. Micro happens within the species, or a single population, while macro is the speciation. You spoke of equivocation and complained about evolutionsists doing this, then do so here, It would be better to say that particles-to-people Evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture and now The key issue is the type of change required—to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content. I thought it was molecules/particles to man? Which is it? Looks like a bait and switch to me. Also, change microbes to man? That would falsify the Theory of Evolution in one fell swoop! You would need many, many, many generations between microbe and man (homo sapien). Perhaps you mean to get from microbes to an eukaryote? You would need more than just DNA there for your examples, you would also need other parts to that cell, like a nucleus, mitochondira, and other membrane-bound organelle. But more improtantly here, you need to define information. DNA is not information. DNA stands for Deoxyribonucleic Acid. It is a dual helix structure comprised of Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine, and Thymine. If by information you mean how genes are created/expanded, then that would be in mutation, as can see in the accompanying pdf. A frameshift encode error on DNA can be the addition of new information in the form of new gene creation. The other aspect of this is. If this is not qualified as information then I would say your use of the word is ambiguous and should be redefined. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evoscales_01 https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/basics/dna https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-deletion-and-duplication-and-the-associated-331# http://www.life.umd.edu/classroom/bsci410-liu/BSCI410-S09/Lecture4.pdf

It is vitally important that words such as ‘Evolution’ be used accurately and consistently. The theory of ‘Evolution’ that the evolutionists are really promoting, and which creationists oppose, is the idea that particles turned into people over time, without any need for an intelligent Designer. The evolutionist Kerkut accurately defined this ‘general theory of Evolution’ (GTE) as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’ He continued: ‘The evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.’6

Let's look at that source you have footnoted. #6. G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (Oxford, UK: Pergamon, 1960), p. 157. Something from 57 years ago. Why is this date of interest? I would think the Francis Crick Papers and the discovery of the Double Helix structure of DNA. 1951-1953. A time before speedy access to information sharing. At the time of Kerkut's work, I would expect him to not have a fundamental support for the deeper parts of evolution. A key set of words was also left out, making this very misleading; "premature and not satisfactorily supported by present-day evidence." Ergo, the evidence was not present at the time this was written. As I mentioned earlier, you are also misleading your readers on the definition of Theory of Evolution. Science would also oppose the theory you are pushing here. Evolution does not postulate that particles turned into people. Evolution does describe the process under which life adapts and changes via natural selection. You are melding abiogenesis with evolution. Evolution - (In general) the proposition that all living organisms have undergone a process of alteration and diversification from simple primordial forms during the earth's history; (in particular) a scientific theory proposing a mechanism for this process, now especially that based on Darwin's theory of the natural selection of genetically inherited and adaptive variation.</a> Abiogenesis - The set of theories aimed to understand the origin of life on earth from inorganic elements. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/theory_of_evolution https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/Views/Exhibit/narrative/doublehelix.html https://www.universetoday.com/41024/abiogenesis

I can say the same. You are purposely using a very old version of a theory to mislead your readers.

I don't appreciate propagandists being used here. It's little different than calling a creationist someone with an Imaginary Friend. While a propagandist is a person who promotes a cause, it also has roots in the mind of the public, ie, the propaganda used in World War II.

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic

For the curious, the full quote here is: "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic. Of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism." You might also want to consider the paragraph before that, which is also left out. "Most important, it should be made clear in the classroom that science, including evolution, has not disproved God's existence because it cannot be allowed to consider it (presumably)." Imagine that. Not to mention, if all the data pointed to an intelligent designer, that would become theory. But no, this was quote mined from a correspondence with Nature.com. The remarkable thing about the internet is we can google quotes and find their context. Notice that science has not disproved God's existence? There is no evidence to begin discovery or theorization of this idea of God. We are certainly looking, but until then, Science will have nothing to say about it. https://www.nature.com/articles/46661

science is not as empirical as many scientists seem to think it is. Unobserved and even unobservable entities play an important part in it. Science is not just the making of observations: it is the making of inferences on the basis of observations within the framework of a theory

I\'m afraid this is another quote mine. Science thrives on Empirical Data, hands down, but it also needs the knowledge of what all this data means. By empirical data, we do not mean hard numbers, but solid tangible facts that we can organize and catalog.

https://books.google.com/books?id=uanzAYFCeokC&pg=PA212#v=onepage&q&f=false

Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective ‘scientific method,’ with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology

It might be helpful to include the entire quote instead of mining out just what you think supports your case. This is a very strong pet peeve of mine. When we get more of the context of this quote, it no longer supports your stance so well. The point that Gould was making here is that every scientist brings bias to the table, just like every Creationist. In fact, every human is made up of experiences and biases that give them a unique outlook on life. We should be open with knowledge and information, we should be transparent in how we get from point a to point b. We will be wrong on occasion, and likely more often than not. It is these idiosyncrasies that allow us to look at the world in our own unique way, and through a collective effort, begin to fundamentally understand the answers to the all driving question of why? https://books.google.com/books/content?id=6iVOHEVeSFMC&pg=PA5&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&sig=ACfU3U20G42YJ67QPTzoib1uD7bLie2ZLg&w=1280

Most people think that ‘science’ follows the evidence wherever it leads. But it is impossible to avoid letting our worldview color our interpretation of the facts. Creationists are honest about the philosophical basis behind their interpretation, whereas naturalists often pretend that they don’t operate from any philosophical bias. The late atheist Stephen Jay Gould, unlike many of his peers, was candid about this bias:

By it\'s nature, science must follow the evidence to it\'s logical conclusion. Theories must be tested against new evidence and constantly revised. A large part of this is peer review, that others can replicate it and remove bias. Scientists are human, they make mistakes, just like any other group. Only creationists are honest? Be careful.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.2

It would be helpful if this was put into context. This statement was part of a review of Carl Sagan's A Demon-Haunted World. The full paragraph (you appear to have cut out only what was relevant to you) is thus: "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen." The first sentence is important as it gives more context to the rest of the passage. In other words, that we are willing to follow the evidence instead of blind faith (Holy Word). Also, it is pivotal to understand a priori. It means that we can know a proposition from no other experience but the ability to communicate in which the proposition is expressed. In other words It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. means we are forced to rely upon the material realm and empirical results that we can experience and confirm to be unchanging and from those extract the understanding of methodology, or how something works. It is just as the last sentence that was conveniently left off says, To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen. Yes, miracles may happen, but they can also be explained. Remember, magic is little more then the art of deception. This passage? Lewontin was attributing the dogmatism to Sagan. http://www.drjbloom.com/Public%20files/Lewontin_Review.htm https://www.amazon.com/The-Demon-Haunted-World-Science-Candle/dp/0345409469/

The editors of Scientific American and other leading evolutionists define ‘science’ in a self-serving way that excludes God and His Word. They openly equate science with the philosophy of ‘methological naturalism’ as has already been shown ‘to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms.’ [SA 85]

And here is the irony. Science does not exclude God nor His Word. Rather, science looks at God and the Scripture and rejects it with the basis of lack of empirical evidence. If it can not be studied or touched or quantified or measured, then Science no longer applies. To put another way, Why is a chicken egg white while a cardinal egg is not? To allow supernatural constructs within rational reasoning, the answer can quickly become an escape hatch. I don't know, therefor, God. Without God, or more accurately, supernatural reasoning, the laws and theories lay the framework for intellectual understanding of our world, and while not always accurate, only becomes refined with time. With supernatural reasoning, it becomes impossible to make any form of reasonable prediction, and as such, knowledge can not move forward. I am an atheist, I don't reject God, I simply do not have any evidence for the existence of said God.

Scientific American devoted the first five points of its article on ‘creationist nonsense’ to defending Evolution against charges that it’s not good science. In this Chapter we will look at each in turn, but first it’s absolutely essential to define terms carefully. How can you know whether something is ‘true science’ or ‘just a theory,’ unless you know what these terms mean? Yet evolutionists often make sweeping claims without adequately defining their terms. The 16th century philosopher Sir Francis Bacon, considered the founder of the scientific method, gave a pretty straightforward definition of science: observation → induction → hypothesis → test hypothesis by experiment → proof/disproof → knowledge

Nope, the definition of science is not the scientific method. A better definition of science would be \"The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.\" For that matter, \"science\" comes from latin scientia, \"knowledge, a knowing; expertness.\" The Scientific Method is merely the order of operations in which we journey towards knowledge. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/science https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/The_Scientific_Method_as_an_Ongoing_Process.svg/450px-The_Scientific_Method_as_an_Ongoing_Process.svg.png https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/science http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=science

This view of science, however, depends on two major philosophical assumptions: causality and induction, which must be accepted by faith. Many modern scientists are so ignorant of basic philosophy that they don’t even realize they have made these assumptions, although several philosophers, such as David Hume and Bertrand Russell, have pointed it out.1

Causality, The relationship between cause and effect</a>. Induction, The inference of a general law from particular instances. Neither of these are faith. Faith has two main definitions: Complete trust or confidence in someone or something and Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. Ironic thing here is you are going to bring God in this and with it, the Intellectual Dishonesty of not applying the same metrics used on Science to your own statement. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/causality https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/induction https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/faith

Scientific American’s comments about the scientific study of subatomic particles, however, miss the point—these cloud chamber experiments are still observations in the present and are repeatable. A dinosaur turning into a bird 150 Ma (million years ago) is neither observable in real time, directly or indirectly, nor repeatable. Chapter 1 of this book explained this confusion about the difference between ‘operational science’ and ‘origins science.’

Rather, I would claim the same Intellectual Dishonesty as before. We must place the same rigorous analysis on all ideas. A dinosaur turning into bird is misleading. Change in Natural Selection happens over generations. We would be looking at the fossil records and the structure of the bones and imprints of skin to observe the state of each fossil within the record. What we have found is that theropods have a foot structure not unlike many modern birds, the presence of the wishbone, hollow bones, and sacral area. In other words, we can observe that the fossils left behind hold stark similarities with current bone structures of living birds. On the other hand, we suspect that the Tyrannosaurus Rex was covered in scales, not feathers, the Velociraptor we now know had feathers. This is before I get to the point of cautioning against making any claim of observability in "real-time". It is a fantastic escape hatch strategy that can bite the user very quickly. If we are not around to see something happen, then we have no evidence. What does this say about the Holy Scripture or anything referring to God? It should be tossed out because it was not observable in real-time. I remember seeing this in the Bill Nye and Ken Ham debate with the line of "Where you there?" This is a very silly argument with no rational constructs. I strongly question if this idea of Operational Vs Historical Science is known anywhere outside of Ken Ham's sphere. I would also revise the idea of evolution being not being observable in real-time or repeatable. In fact, the theory of evolution makes predictions that can then be tested. Harvard Medical School did just that. A massive petri dish was constructed with bands of antibiotics going from concentration of 1 to 10 to 100 to 1000 strength. Theory of Evolution predicts that presented with environmental constraints, mutation will occur to allow adaptation to a new environment or the species will die. In a time lapse video, we can see how bacteria would mutate each time to survive in hostile environments which were toxic to their predecessors. The very Theory that you reject as "conjecture and unsubstantiated hypothesis." https://www.wbu.com/chipperwoods/photos/dinos.htm https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/world-s-only-fossils-t-rex-skin-suggest-it-was-covered-scales-not-feathers https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-fossil-reveals-velociraptor-sported-feathers/ http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/09/a-cinematic-approach-to-drug-resistance/

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law. All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists’ conclusions less certain. [SA 79] Unfortunately, some creationists actually do argue that ‘Evolution is just a theory.’ What they usually mean is ‘Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.’ (Therefore, that is what they should say.) The problem with using the word ‘theory’ in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known ones such as Einstein’s theory of relativity and Newton’s theory of gravity, and lesser-known ones such as the Debye–Hückel theory of electrolyte solutions and the Deryagin–Landau/Verwey–Overbeek (DLVO) theory of the stability of lyophobic sols, etc. It would be better to say that particles-to-people Evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.

I agree wholeheartedly. Some (more than just creationists) argue that Evolution is \"just\" a theory, which leads into your proposed interpretation. Evolution is not proven fact. This is a misrepresentation based on ignorance of the subject matter, the scientific method. That this article promotes this idea from a Doctorate Holder in Chemistry makes me consider Intellectual Dishonesty. There is a failure to subject your own belief set to the same rigorous analysis that you subject an opposing idea. On the end of this paragraph, there is the next red-herring; \"particles-to-people Evolution.\" Such a theory does not exist. The full name of the theory in question is the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, hypothesized by Charles Darwin in 1859 and theorizes that life on earth can be traced back to a few common ancestors. That the process of change is through natural selection via survival of the fittest as defined by the capacity to survive to reproduce. In no way, shape or form, does the Theory of Evolution address the origin of life. By \"particles-to-people\" I can only assume you meant abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is the study of the origin of life, which has nothing to do with Evolution. As such, your statement of \"It would be better to say that particles-to-people Evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture\" is true, for the context of your statement is faulty. On the other hand, the Theory of Evolution is very well substantiated by multiple lines of evidence.

The fossil record shows a sequential lineage of change. We can see where birds appeared, where mammals appeared and where the various features appeared within the lineages.
We can see similar structure of similar and even distantly related creatures
We can see the effect of geographic disturbances on the process of speciation
We can observe the genetic change in rapid generation life forms (bacteria)

https://www.livescience.com/474-controversy-evolution-works.html https://www.universetoday.com/41024/abiogenesis/

I would venture to say the wording of this is rather slimey. The subject is evolution. To redirect towards a group of people is a misdirection of the underlying subject matter. But alas, Evolution is "just a theory". It can not be a fact. A scientific theory is "a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation." A scientific fact is "any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted." In otherwords, "evolutionists" should not bristle over such a statement. It is a statement of reality. On the other hand, I can see why "bristling" would occur if the argument is misrepresented. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/scientific-theory\ http://www.dictionary.com/browse/scientific-fact

Evolutionists say, ‘Evolution is real science that solves real problems; it is founded on the modern belief that we should try to explain the universe in natural terms.’

Leading off, I would have to ask for citation on what appears to be a quote. I will hit the \"natural terms\" later on in this article.

by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. with Michael Matthews

I notice that Jonathan Sarfeti is a chemist. That means he should be understanding of the basic scientific methodology.

Annotators

URL